Read the call-of-the-question carefully, and follow the instructions for each subject. Prepare four briefing papers using the APA format for research papers, and upload them as one document for your response.
Briefing Paper 1: Critical Legal Thinking
•Read Intel Corporation v. Intelsys Software, LLC -- Cheeseman text page 170-171.
•Respond to the three Case Questions found in Cheeseman text page 171.
•Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions whether the federal government has a right to interfere with your business, and if so, under what conditions..
Briefing Paper 2: Law Case with Answers
•Read Arizona v. Gant - Cheeseman text page 146-147.
•Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions as noted in the Critical Legal Thinking, Ethics, and Contemporary Business - argue both sides of all three issues..
Briefing Paper 3: Critical Legal Thinking Cases
•Read sections 5.7 Equal Protection Clause (p. 106); 6.8 Design Defect (p. 128-129); 7.8 Search and Seizure (p. 153); and 8.1 Fair Use (p. 176).
•Check the decisions of the highest appellate courts for each fact pattern..
•Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions on whether each of the four subjects affect business in the United States and if so, provide the worst and best case scenarios..
Briefing Paper 4: Ethics Case
•Read Section 8.10 Ethics - Cheeseman text page 178 Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions on the 3 questions found at the end of Section. Argue both sides of all issues..
I have outlined all but one of the cases and the general information needed to help you modify or edit them according to the class needs. Please review each one and then modify it to meet the class requirements including templates. I added references for the cases in section 3. I did not complete the last briefing information because it ended before the case was completed and there were no questions.
Intel vs Intelsys
In this case, Intelsys was named and using a trademark similar to the established Intel, which had registered a number of names under its Intel brand. Intelsys is a software company that like Intel, sells to those in the technology market. The name, Intelsys, is only different because it uses the sys at the end, which is an abbreviation for systems or software, which the company does supply, but in the same industry as Intel. Intel sued to have the company stop using the name, Intelsys.
1. The Lapp Test, established to determine confusion. The issues of confusion include, the similarity of the marks, the recognizable/strength of the plaintiff's (usually the first to use it) mark, how sophisticated it is and any actual confusion it has caused. There is the consideration of the markets and channels used by both and the extent to which the products of both are similar, anything that else that might cause consumer confusion. Finally the intent of the defendant when they chose the trademark.
2. I would say that it probably did. The Intel name, while an abbreviation for intelligent or intelligence, might be considered generic. However, it would automatically incline many to think an association with any brand that used that, because it is so famous and so well marketed and known. Intelsys is probably, while a software only company, willing to use the Intel name to gain competitive edge in marketing through people's familiarity with the name.
3. I think it attempts to happen a lot. I am usually pretty careful about knowing the products and their origins when I buy, but years ago, this was a real problem and there were a lot of similar sounding companies in many different industries. I remember Burger King, Burger Chef, Royal Burger and often their color schemes and advertising were very similar, including the names of some of their menu items.
Arizona v Gant
Police, in attempting to determine if drugs were being sold from a house, went to that house, asked to speak to the owner, but instead met Gant. Gant freely identified himself and told the officers the owner would be home later. Upon further research, Gant was identified as having an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license. This will be important in the outcome of the case. When officers went back to the house, Gant drove up, got out of his car, and shut the door. Officers arrested him when he was 10-12 feet from the car on the outstanding warrant. The officers then proceeded to search his car, where they found cocaine and a gun, but they had no warrant to search the vehicle and at trial, he sought to suppress this information. He asked for the suppression under the warrantless search had violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court said it was permissible, but the Arizona Supreme Court disagreed and the Supreme Court concurred.
1. The incident has to be relatable to the arrest warrant and the person has to either make the attempt or have reasonable access to a weapon or evidence that can be destroyed during the arrest. In this ...
Brief case reviews of cases involving all kinds of potential business related rules of law.